Criticism: 97% of the climate science literature disagrees with the list.

Rebuttal: No 97% study exists that shows 43,950 peer-reviewed papers explicitly endorsing AGW. The largest study to date, Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11 ,944 abstracts (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 66% (7930) held no position. Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.

Anyone else want to try next?

Sure, why not?

Only those abstracts expressing an opinion can respond to the question of endorse/reject. You can't say anything about papers that give no opinion. Nevertheless, they make clear that 66% of abstracts surveyed provided no opinion in the abstract. They follow up with...

They didn't survey 43,650 papers, nor did they say so. Whay do you want that many?

Poptech, are you one of the critics who reject warming from greenhouse gases?

I was responding to ireallyshouldknowbetter who claimed my list represented the 3% of the bogus 97% consensus talking point. If this was true, there would be 43,650 papers endorsing AGW.

I am agnostic on the amount of warming that CO2 can produce.

Originally Posted by barry schwarz

Only those papers expressing an opinion can give meaning to the question of endorse/reject. You can't say anything about papers that give no opinion. Nevertheless, they make clear that this number provided no opinion in the abstract. They follow up with...

I am well aware of what the paper actually says but that is not the propaganda that just about everyone who cites the study when using the bogus 97% talking point believes.

Only those papers expressing an opinion can give meaning to the question of endorse/reject. You can't say anything about papers that give no opinion. Nevertheless, they make clear that this number provided no opinion in the abstract. They follow up with...

Professor Richard Tol, who has published criticism of Cook's methodology, does not dispute the core finding.

Blogger And Then There's Physics sums it up:

At least Richard seems to have acknowledged that the scientific literature does indeed indicate that a vast majority of publications indicate that humans are the dominant driver of warming over the last half century.

So, his issue appears to only be with the method and his suggestion is that Cook et al. have failed to prove a consensus despite getting a result that is likely consistent with the strength of the consensus. Need I say more?

Meanwhile, the other main protesters are a roundup of the usual (denier) suspects - Idso, Scarfetta etc. They would say anything to deny Cook's result, wouldn't they?

Appell cites several of Bengtsson's papers that put him squarely within the climate science consensus:

This 2011 paper found "that the models have a minor systematic warm bias in the upper troposphere."

In this 2013 paper, Bengtsson finds a lower bound for transient climate sensitivity of 1.5 ± 0.3°C, and for equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.0 ± 0.5°C. Those are lower bounds, mind you. That puts him squarely in the AGW camp.

A 2002 paper on which Bengtsson was a co-author finds "...that anthropogenic forcing is a likely explanation for the observed global ocean warming over the past five decades."

Nothing radical there. Other scientists would dispute every one (some a bit more, some a bit less), but so what?

Other climate scientists would also dispute his comments about models, but Bengtsson seems to have no doubt about where teh future development of temperature is going.

Bengtsson, clearly, agrees that our CO2 emissions are creating a lot of change, with serious consequences. With his own estimates for the lower bound of climate sensitivity, he can hardly say otherwise.

He then says (in the Spiegel interview) it's very hard to see all the societal changes in the next 100 years (OK. So what?), and:

Bengtsson: No. I think the best and perhaps only sensible policy for the future is to prepare society for change and be prepared to adjust. In 25 years, we'll have a world with some 9 to 10 billion people that will require twice as much primary energy as today. We must embrace new science and technology in a more positive way than we presently do in Europe.

This includes, for example, nuclear energy and genetic food production to provide the world what it urgently needs.

I have posted similar comments here myself! That's "alarmism" according to deniers. As Appell says "Too sensible for GWPF".

About Politics.ie

Politics.ie is one of Ireland's leading politics and current affairs discussion websites with more than 600,000 visitors a month. Founded in 2003, Politics.ie has one of the most engaged, respected and influential politics and current affairs communities.